its not something that went wrong, it never had potential in the first place. it has nothing to do with the game aoe2, any more than number 3 did. its just a brand. if you want a modern rts that lives up to aoe2 you are gonna have to make it yourself because microsoft sure as frick isnt.
released with severe bugs, exploits and arguably balance issues
patching at snail's pace due to microsoft/xbox app policy or something
too similar to aoe2
sovlless campaign
60 eurodollar price tag while also being on the xbox app so everyone tried it for free for 3 months and then dropped it
I dont think it's too bad, but I have a hard time selling it when Age2 has so much more to offer
The only thing going for it is the diversity of factions and their strategies, as well as that you're challenging opponents with only a year of experience instead of 22 years
But it's pretty good
I like it a lot
Steep price, won't buy until it's cheaper, tho
Also almost no new content, but it's good MP and has just -right- content right now.
Campaign is sanitized ass. Give me a raunchy but fun ass.
The ultimate redpill these days is that this is the only new RTS that is worth playing
It's fun, addictive, well implemented changes over the already good AoE2, and nothing else is coming out in ages. I like it quite a lot and it's worth money. How much? well that depends on you. Team fights in this game are the only ones i've played in an RTS in ages. Good stuff
This. Aoe4 is a lot more fun than aoe2 even with soulless mods. You can only do so much on an engine that uses sprites instead of 3d models like an internet flash game.
This game unironically feels like it was made by Game Design program grads who talk about games all day thanks to being perpetually online but have never been knee deep into any game apart from the most obvious normie shit.
Oh boy. Can't wait for /vst/ to have a panic attack over Malians not being uniquely gimped on water, or being given Northern European naval units as a "Generic" option.
/s
2 years ago
Anonymous
>/s
2 years ago
Anonymous
I expect it to happen. I'm just not excited for it. Frick this board.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>/s
2 years ago
Anonymous
Dead board. I'm using Reddit's formatting until it's not.
I'm kinda happy we're not getting Byzantines if only for those arrogant people who were so sure we were getting them.
Don't speculate and call it truth.
I don't know if you did that, but others did. Just saying.
It's kind of incredible how bad some trailers are. It's not even like an intern for Relic made this, cause that would at least show some excitement. It's like it was outsourced and the intern for another company made it.
Dark Ages started in the 5th century AD. Ottomans is a better fit in AoE3.
>No Romans in the original game >No Romans in the first extension
They are not even trying at this point, pathetic.
Romans should have been the foremost civ in aoe4 as they had been during the time period. Relic's design director left which is why the game direction has taken a shift. The addition new civs, Malians as one of them is probably to capture the aoe2de tardlings. Idk why they would follow the direction of that shit game.
>Seething about your shit game leaning on superior AOE2 to jack up the player count
LMAOing
2 years ago
Anonymous
>AOE2
Aoe2DE*
Malians was not in the original aoe2 which is the only one that's real. You got scammed into paying for a mod for a 20 year old game. Lmao! Now isn't that something.
>Dark Ages started in the 5th century AD.
Yeah, and AoE4 is centered on the 1000-1700 period.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Aoe4 starts in the Dark Age before you age up to the Feudal Age. Ottoman Empire and Mali Empire only existed in the last few centuries of the game which makes them odd and out of place additions except when you consider Relic could be following the odd and out of place non-canonical paid mod pack for aoe2 called DE that so many grognard poorgays seem to be in hysterics for.
>mod
There he is!
Meds, now
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Aoe4 starts in the Dark Age before you age up to the Feudal Age.
Yes, and the game is focused on the period from 1000-1700 AD. Do you understand? It involves elements and times from before that point, but it is explictly focused on the time period stated above. Mali and the Ottoman Empire both existed during this time.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the game is focused on the period from 1000-1700 AD
Do you have a quote from the devs admitting this or is that just your autistic interpretation?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Do you have a quote from the devs admitting this or is that just your autistic interpretation?
Last time we had a discussion about the importance of the timeline was back around Christmas.
2 years ago
Anonymous
NTA but if you want to look at the admittedly somewhat arbitrary timelines provided for each civ in the tech tree: >english: 850 - 1555 >chinese: 907 - 1644 >french: 940 - 1559 >HRE: 936 - 1517 >mongols: 1000 - 1500 >rus: 882 - 1547 >delhi: 879 - 1526 >abbasids: 750 - 1517
1700 is a severe stretch and 1000 is rather high for the lower range.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Either way, Malians fit, and so do Ottos.
~1250-1470
~1350-???
What do the upper numbers mean in the case of English and French? They didn't cease to exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
from what i've seen nobody really has a good explanation for either of the english dates (1558 would have been much better for the start of the elizabethan era) but for french 1559 is the end of the habsurg-valois wars which is sometimes seen as the end of the medieval era in french history.
>no bell button >the units looks all lame and boring >projectiles looks and feel lame with no impact >the music sucks even the main theme lacks of energy >advance like asian dynasties from aoe3 >but with less options and less cool shit >wall gated still works like aoe2 >stone walls can only be attacked by siege units >trade post can only produce gold instead of other resources like in aoe 3 >still only 4 ages instead of adding revolutions or more ages >aoe 2 all over again >pathfinding still sucks >less boars now to hunt >no dynamic music >sounds effects are even more bland >Religious sites won’t allow you to produce new technologies or recruit new types of units they are just there for a new wining method
So many opportunities to add yet they choose to be bland boring and stay in their comfort zone would be cool if in the last age allow you to produce musket soldiers or even make a religious revolution like the flagelants or the martyr luther one but nope they choose to be lame and boring
It was medieval Company of Heroes with an artificial AoE2 thematic.
Units don't say single-word quotes, they go on whole monologues about the glory of war just like CoH. Music is also utter shit because it's "realistc" and unique to each faction WHICH WAS A HUGE MISTAKE. Not having a general soundtrack IS NOT AGE OF EMPIRES. Even more so considering AoE3 and AoEO had the best OSTs of the franchise.
Other than that, the campaigns are shit. Completely souless narration over boring missions.
Units have shit animations too, graphics are weird. UI is atrocious. Factions are convoluted for no good reason, leading to samey-as-frick starts.
And on top of all that, there's no reason to play it over AoE2 if you want a medieval RTS.
>It was medieval Company of Heroes
It wasn't, but I kind of wish they fully committed to that distinct Relic feel.
I mean units trained as squads with upgrades and abilities, off-map trebuchet barrages, only two but well-o
polished factions (e.g. English vs French), and flavorful unit chatter such as: 'Eat longbow!', or 'Aargh, they're frying our arses with hot oil here!'. It would be amusing, if nothing else.
>this was the closest we got to an attempt at a new competitive 1v1 RTS game since SC2 which is fricking 12 years old >playerbase abandonded it before ranked mode was even released >tfw it's BW/AOE2/SC2 until the end of fricking time
Literally how? With streamshitting and esports being so popular how is a 1v1 focused RTS game not financially viable to even try?
1v1 isn't fun to watch regardless of the genre. Most online gaming involves multiple participants, the more the merrier, and that's what makes it work so well.
>1v1 isn't fun to watch regardless of the genre. Most online gaming involves multiple participants
This is a fricking lie, AOE2 1v1s are kino, but team games play out the exact same over and over.
NTA. AoE2 1v1s are great to play, but they can be boring to watch if one of the following happens. >Mass arbs >Mass knights >Trash war >Castle drop >Feudal GG >Huscarl GG >Boar lame GG
Because the Siege meta was fricking gay and made the game super boring to watch, it was a solid few months of everyone building nothing but springalds than mangonels/bombards which made every single pro match look the exact same. nice job lelic
Relic and World's Edge's biggest mistake is going all on in on Competitive Multiplayer for a "Buy 2 Play" game. The majority of RTS players are chill casuals who are are scared shitless to ever play an online multiplayer game. They think you need a PhD and godlike reflexes just to not get stomped in the first 5 minutes of a match (hyperbole I know). So that's leads to the Single Player Campaign which is total shit. Only the English, the French, the Rus, and Mongols have campaigns. Everyone else are just the Jobber Civs you fight against in the Campaign. The other 4 Civs might as well not even exist. They basically played the campaign, realized it was shit, and then uninstalled and got a refund if they were less than 2 hours in.
Also, everyone's moved on to Total War: Warhammer III now that Immortal Empires is finally released.
You know, the funny thing is, what happened to AoE4 is exactly what naysayers were saying would happen to SC2. And AoE4 does indeed share a lot of the same problems: superficial gameplay changes, bad art direction, graphics that were dated they day it came out etc. But you know what Blizzard was smart enough to do? They didn't launch SC2 with less multiplayer content than BW and they didn't keep supporting BW. Who the frick would switch from AoE2 to almost exactly the same game but with less shit in it and which, given Relic's recent track record, will lose support long before AoE2 does? The only reason to play AoE4 was on release, if you wanted to learn a "new" game together with everybody else instead of fighting people who have been playing 2 since pre-school. But that moment has come and gone, and you can't ever get it back.
>Proud of your game dying
AOE4 isn't even gonna have a scene by the time Wololo Anniversary rolls around. Can't wait to ditch 1 and 4 for the next one.
the only issue is the price.
dilate.
I posted the reasons in another thread, but it made the resident trannies of this board seethe and dilate way too much, so I'm not posting them again.
looks like they succeeded in scaring you. pussy.
>it made the resident trannies of this board seethe and dilate way too much
That's exactly why you should post it again.
Nah, the worst thing is that it didn't go wrong nearly enough. You think it's a disaster but it did plenty fine for what it was.
It tries to compete with AoE2 too much instead of doing its own thing entirely.
its not something that went wrong, it never had potential in the first place. it has nothing to do with the game aoe2, any more than number 3 did. its just a brand. if you want a modern rts that lives up to aoe2 you are gonna have to make it yourself because microsoft sure as frick isnt.
that game looks worse than games from 2005 and requires 10x the pc to run smoothly and windows 10 botnet
released with severe bugs, exploits and arguably balance issues
patching at snail's pace due to microsoft/xbox app policy or something
too similar to aoe2
sovlless campaign
60 eurodollar price tag while also being on the xbox app so everyone tried it for free for 3 months and then dropped it
I dont think it's too bad, but I have a hard time selling it when Age2 has so much more to offer
The only thing going for it is the diversity of factions and their strategies, as well as that you're challenging opponents with only a year of experience instead of 22 years
i like it
But it's pretty good
I like it a lot
Steep price, won't buy until it's cheaper, tho
Also almost no new content, but it's good MP and has just -right- content right now.
Campaign is sanitized ass. Give me a raunchy but fun ass.
The ultimate redpill these days is that this is the only new RTS that is worth playing
It's fun, addictive, well implemented changes over the already good AoE2, and nothing else is coming out in ages. I like it quite a lot and it's worth money. How much? well that depends on you. Team fights in this game are the only ones i've played in an RTS in ages. Good stuff
This. Aoe4 is a lot more fun than aoe2 even with soulless mods. You can only do so much on an engine that uses sprites instead of 3d models like an internet flash game.
This game unironically feels like it was made by Game Design program grads who talk about games all day thanks to being perpetually online but have never been knee deep into any game apart from the most obvious normie shit.
It's half off.
Does that mean you wanna add me and help me out then?
Please.
why do you not have a job
http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198250091314
What? I don't even play AoE4.
I'm not necessarily looking for someone to play it with, just someone to get it for me.
You can't scrape together $30?
>too poor to buy
>too stupid to pirate
Might as well have a nice day.
dont worry we are getting the malians finally some proper poc representation the game is saved
Did they announce them?
Malians and Turks according to Chinese leak. Announcement tomorrow, release on 10/29
Oooh. Sounds nice. Hope they live up to their AoE2 forms.
They also just were revealed at gamescom, including a big picture of a fleet of ships so we will hopefully see a naval revamp.
Oh boy. Can't wait for /vst/ to have a panic attack over Malians not being uniquely gimped on water, or being given Northern European naval units as a "Generic" option.
/s
>/s
I expect it to happen. I'm just not excited for it. Frick this board.
>/s
Dead board. I'm using Reddit's formatting until it's not.
Huh, I thought we will get Byzantine.
Yeah, you did. Be grateful.
Need to please the shitskins larping as wakandans first.
I'm kinda happy we're not getting Byzantines if only for those arrogant people who were so sure we were getting them.
Don't speculate and call it truth.
I don't know if you did that, but others did. Just saying.
Are you some fricking white supremacist or what?
Finally, a white empire
still going to keep playing delhi and saving all my sacred site gold for lancers and elephants
soulless cash-grab created to capitalise on AoE2's success, there was no passion behind the concept
THE GAME IS SAVED !
Literally nothing.
It's a buggier aoe2 with a fresh coat of paint. That's the real problem.
No reason to play 4 unless you never played 2.
high quality vid
It's kind of incredible how bad some trailers are. It's not even like an intern for Relic made this, cause that would at least show some excitement. It's like it was outsourced and the intern for another company made it.
fricked based, plus its free
kino is back on the menu
isn't it a bit too early for the ottomans?
It is but they don’t care a shit about it
They fit in the timeframe of the game.
It is. Ottoman beylik wasn't importnat up until the very end of middle-ages. It should be Sultanate of Rûm.
AoE4 is centered on the 1000-1700 period.
Dark Ages started in the 5th century AD. Ottomans is a better fit in AoE3.
Romans should have been the foremost civ in aoe4 as they had been during the time period. Relic's design director left which is why the game direction has taken a shift. The addition new civs, Malians as one of them is probably to capture the aoe2de tardlings. Idk why they would follow the direction of that shit game.
>Seething about your shit game leaning on superior AOE2 to jack up the player count
LMAOing
>AOE2
Aoe2DE*
Malians was not in the original aoe2 which is the only one that's real. You got scammed into paying for a mod for a 20 year old game. Lmao! Now isn't that something.
>mod
There he is!
>Dark Ages started in the 5th century AD.
Yeah, and AoE4 is centered on the 1000-1700 period.
Aoe4 starts in the Dark Age before you age up to the Feudal Age. Ottoman Empire and Mali Empire only existed in the last few centuries of the game which makes them odd and out of place additions except when you consider Relic could be following the odd and out of place non-canonical paid mod pack for aoe2 called DE that so many grognard poorgays seem to be in hysterics for.
Meds, now
>Aoe4 starts in the Dark Age before you age up to the Feudal Age.
Yes, and the game is focused on the period from 1000-1700 AD. Do you understand? It involves elements and times from before that point, but it is explictly focused on the time period stated above. Mali and the Ottoman Empire both existed during this time.
>the game is focused on the period from 1000-1700 AD
Do you have a quote from the devs admitting this or is that just your autistic interpretation?
>Do you have a quote from the devs admitting this or is that just your autistic interpretation?
Last time we had a discussion about the importance of the timeline was back around Christmas.
NTA but if you want to look at the admittedly somewhat arbitrary timelines provided for each civ in the tech tree:
>english: 850 - 1555
>chinese: 907 - 1644
>french: 940 - 1559
>HRE: 936 - 1517
>mongols: 1000 - 1500
>rus: 882 - 1547
>delhi: 879 - 1526
>abbasids: 750 - 1517
1700 is a severe stretch and 1000 is rather high for the lower range.
Either way, Malians fit, and so do Ottos.
~1250-1470
~1350-???
What do the upper numbers mean in the case of English and French? They didn't cease to exist.
from what i've seen nobody really has a good explanation for either of the english dates (1558 would have been much better for the start of the elizabethan era) but for french 1559 is the end of the habsurg-valois wars which is sometimes seen as the end of the medieval era in french history.
imo ottomans should have just been 'turks' and incorporated elements from Seljuks and whatever for early eras and Ottomans later on
Why don't they call the civs "arabs" or "turks" again? England isn't divided between Plantagenet, Norman or Tudor
No they should have been in the base game
its a fine game at a normies glance but out of touch with the community, and most zoomies are just addicted to mobas, gachas and pseudogambling BS
Trial of PC game pass burner account= 1$/month of game (I've done it like 4 times, just disable auto-renewing of the account)
>no bell button
>the units looks all lame and boring
>projectiles looks and feel lame with no impact
>the music sucks even the main theme lacks of energy
>advance like asian dynasties from aoe3
>but with less options and less cool shit
>wall gated still works like aoe2
>stone walls can only be attacked by siege units
>trade post can only produce gold instead of other resources like in aoe 3
>still only 4 ages instead of adding revolutions or more ages
>aoe 2 all over again
>pathfinding still sucks
>less boars now to hunt
>no dynamic music
>sounds effects are even more bland
>Religious sites won’t allow you to produce new technologies or recruit new types of units they are just there for a new wining method
So many opportunities to add yet they choose to be bland boring and stay in their comfort zone would be cool if in the last age allow you to produce musket soldiers or even make a religious revolution like the flagelants or the martyr luther one but nope they choose to be lame and boring
>trebuchets and mangonels fire straight up into the stratosphere.
It was medieval Company of Heroes with an artificial AoE2 thematic.
Units don't say single-word quotes, they go on whole monologues about the glory of war just like CoH. Music is also utter shit because it's "realistc" and unique to each faction WHICH WAS A HUGE MISTAKE. Not having a general soundtrack IS NOT AGE OF EMPIRES. Even more so considering AoE3 and AoEO had the best OSTs of the franchise.
Other than that, the campaigns are shit. Completely souless narration over boring missions.
Units have shit animations too, graphics are weird. UI is atrocious. Factions are convoluted for no good reason, leading to samey-as-frick starts.
And on top of all that, there's no reason to play it over AoE2 if you want a medieval RTS.
>It was medieval Company of Heroes
It wasn't, but I kind of wish they fully committed to that distinct Relic feel.
I mean units trained as squads with upgrades and abilities, off-map trebuchet barrages, only two but well-o
polished factions (e.g. English vs French), and flavorful unit chatter such as: 'Eat longbow!', or 'Aargh, they're frying our arses with hot oil here!'. It would be amusing, if nothing else.
>this was the closest we got to an attempt at a new competitive 1v1 RTS game since SC2 which is fricking 12 years old
>playerbase abandonded it before ranked mode was even released
>tfw it's BW/AOE2/SC2 until the end of fricking time
Literally how? With streamshitting and esports being so popular how is a 1v1 focused RTS game not financially viable to even try?
1v1 isn't fun to watch regardless of the genre. Most online gaming involves multiple participants, the more the merrier, and that's what makes it work so well.
>1v1 isn't fun to watch regardless of the genre. Most online gaming involves multiple participants
This is a fricking lie, AOE2 1v1s are kino, but team games play out the exact same over and over.
NTA. AoE2 1v1s are great to play, but they can be boring to watch if one of the following happens.
>Mass arbs
>Mass knights
>Trash war
>Castle drop
>Feudal GG
>Huscarl GG
>Boar lame GG
Chess.
Yeah, that's a good example of a game only nerds can enjoy.
Because the Siege meta was fricking gay and made the game super boring to watch, it was a solid few months of everyone building nothing but springalds than mangonels/bombards which made every single pro match look the exact same. nice job lelic
>No Romans in the original game
>No Romans in the first extension
They are not even trying at this point, pathetic.
>Wanting Romans in your game
Relic and World's Edge's biggest mistake is going all on in on Competitive Multiplayer for a "Buy 2 Play" game. The majority of RTS players are chill casuals who are are scared shitless to ever play an online multiplayer game. They think you need a PhD and godlike reflexes just to not get stomped in the first 5 minutes of a match (hyperbole I know). So that's leads to the Single Player Campaign which is total shit. Only the English, the French, the Rus, and Mongols have campaigns. Everyone else are just the Jobber Civs you fight against in the Campaign. The other 4 Civs might as well not even exist. They basically played the campaign, realized it was shit, and then uninstalled and got a refund if they were less than 2 hours in.
Also, everyone's moved on to Total War: Warhammer III now that Immortal Empires is finally released.
Ladder grind is boring.
>no gameplay of the new factions outside of the trailer
>no mention of water
false and false
I like how Men-at-arms are fricking useful and how the crossbow counter is moreso than before
>ottomans
literally why, it is so far outside the game time-frame. Why not pick Seljuks or Sultanate of Rum
not a real problem. AoE2 has the Huns (featured in a 450 A.D campaign) co-existing alongside the Aztecs (founded in 1428)
This series was never period accurate. The first game had early middle-age japan in it.
>series cant improve and god forbid it features some civs and eras we haven't seen before a thousand times
I'm just pointing out that this series never cared about historical accuracy, it's no surprise this game isn't either.
1. It's ugly, looks like a Mobile game
2. 2 is simply more fun to play
3. It has 1/10 the content of 2
You know, the funny thing is, what happened to AoE4 is exactly what naysayers were saying would happen to SC2. And AoE4 does indeed share a lot of the same problems: superficial gameplay changes, bad art direction, graphics that were dated they day it came out etc. But you know what Blizzard was smart enough to do? They didn't launch SC2 with less multiplayer content than BW and they didn't keep supporting BW. Who the frick would switch from AoE2 to almost exactly the same game but with less shit in it and which, given Relic's recent track record, will lose support long before AoE2 does? The only reason to play AoE4 was on release, if you wanted to learn a "new" game together with everybody else instead of fighting people who have been playing 2 since pre-school. But that moment has come and gone, and you can't ever get it back.
>Still no fricking decent build order database
Nice totally living game you got here AOE4tards.
based, frick soulless metaBlack folk who just copy other people's builds
>Proud of your game dying
AOE4 isn't even gonna have a scene by the time Wololo Anniversary rolls around. Can't wait to ditch 1 and 4 for the next one.
I played 10 minutes of it. It's good. I don't see why you're all complaining.
I told you gays that this game is shit even before the release. But you refused to listen.
But it's good. You really want it to fail, but came pretty fun. Wouldn't it make you happy? it doesn't take the place of anytihng else.
I like to see 2021 games that look worse than a 2012 game fail.
It's really not.
>But it's good